Part Seven Of My Response To Ron Paul Hater Barry Germansky

Part Seven Of My Response To Ron Paul Hater Barry Germansky.

Barry Germansky: “So, this claim that the Pauls are making that these programs [the FDA and the Department of Education, for example] are unconstitutional is completely false. If the people want it and its implemented, through the government, then its 100% fine. What is very interesting though is that the Pauls are hypocrites based on their own twisted logic because they seem to pride themselves on being strict Constitutionalists. But they then make these misreadings where free markets, and capitalism, and money, and all kinds of other economics-related terms are featured as mandatory requirements in the Constitution, when they’re not. “Free Market” and “Capitalism” aren’t mentioned in the Constitution.”

Henry Moore: Assuming all (or even just a significant portion) of what I have said so far is true, your allegations of the Pauls’ claims being false are themselves false, and UNSUBSTANTIAL.

And if a slight majority of people want it, no matter what it is, provided it is done through the coercive power of government, is it 100% fine? Well…that is a big if, and you forgot to mention something very important, the Constitution! Not just “if the people want it and government implements it”, but also, “if the Constitution allows it”! To ignore this is the same as saying “the FDA and DOEd are Constitutional because the Constitution says that the people [or a majority and the government are the ultimate authority even when in contradiction to the same Constitution.” You forget something very important: a Republic is a Nation of Laws, not a Nation of the capricious whims of masses.

So then the Pauls bash people for adding to the Constitution (something you seem to be alright with) and then turn around and add to the Constitution? They want to force Capitalism and Free Markets on people, using the same Constitution that does not even “mention” those things to do the deed, so notorious and nefarious? Really? This is absurd on its face! The problem for you here is, once again, the Tenth Amendment (along with the Ninth). If the United States Constitution does not prohibit Capitalism and Free Markets, then the States-several and the people are free to pursue them as such. If the States do not respectively prohibit Capitalism and Free Markets, then the people are free to engage in them. Even if some of the people freely choose not to engage that system (a near impossibility in all actuality), they are still, in effect, participating in the Free Market. This understanding is deeply rooted in the definitions of “Free” and “Market”, one, the other, or both. A Free Market is not a strict hierarchical structure as you seem to assert, but a loose structure that allows people to engage in any system they desire, capitalism, socialism, whatever, without forcing others to adopt it along with them. It goes back to a fundamental understanding of Liberty.


Any thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s